Title
Lavadia vs. Heirs of Luna
Case
G.R. No. 171914
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2014
Atty. Luna’s Dominican divorce and second marriage were void under Philippine law; properties acquired during his bigamous marriage remained part of his first conjugal partnership.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58674-77)

Relevant Places

• Philippines: Parañaque (civil marriage), San Miguel, Bulacan (church marriage), Makati City (trial and appellate courts)
• Dominican Republic: Sto. Domingo (divorce decree, second marriage)

Key Dates

• September 10, 1947 – Civil marriage of Luna and Eugenia Zaballero
• September 12, 1948 – Church solemnization of that marriage
• February 1966 – Separation of spouses in the Philippines
• November 12, 1975 – Execution of written Agreement for Separation and Property Settlement
• January 12, 1976 – Dominican Republic divorce decree and second marriage of Luna to Soledad
• July 15, 1983 – Deed of Absolute Sale of Kalaw-Ledesma condominium unit in Makati City
• July 12, 1997 – Death of Juan Luces Luna
• September 10, 1999 – Filing of Soledad’s complaint in RTC Makati for co-ownership and accounting
• August 27, 2001 – RTC decision in Civil Case No. 99-1644
• November 11, 2005 – Court of Appeals decision, modified RTC judgment
• July 23, 2014 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Marriage as inviolable social institution (Art. XV, Sec. 2)
• Spanish Civil Code (at time of 1947 marriage) and Revised Civil Code – Nationality rule (Arts. 15, 119, 142, 144, 175–191; Arts. 71, 80, 83 on void marriages)
• Family Code (effective 1988) – Definition of marriage (Art. 1), co-ownership of property in void unions (Art. 148)

Antecedent Facts

Juan Luna and Eugenia Zaballero-Luna were married in parañaque by civil ceremony in 1947 and in Bulacan in 1948, and they established a conjugal partnership of gains under the Spanish Civil Code. They had seven children and lived together until February 1966, when they agreed to live apart and executed a written separation and property-settlement agreement on November 12, 1975. On January 12, 1976, Luna obtained a divorce decree in Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic, and immediately married Soledad Lavadia there. Back in the Philippines, Luna practiced in successive law firms, including one occupying a 517.52 m² condominium unit in Makati purchased in installments beginning April 1978 and fully paid by July 1983. Luna died on July 12, 1997. Thereafter, his first‐marriage heirs, represented by Gregorio Z. Luna, took possession of his 25/100 pro indiviso share in the condominium and related law books. Soledad filed suit in RTC Makati on September 10, 1999, claiming a 3/4 pro indiviso share (12/100 acquired plus 12/100 by testamentary bequest) in the unit and ownership of the law books.

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court ruled that:
• Luna’s 24/100 (sic) share in the condominium was acquired solely by his labor and funds, not as conjugal or common property with Soledad
• Soledad had no ownership rights in the unit and the condominium title’s civil-status entry must revert to “married to Eugenia Zaballero-Luna”
• Soledad owned certain law books found in the office and the heirs must deliver them to her

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision, holding that:
• The Dominican Republic divorce was ineffective under Philippine law; Luna’s first marriage subsisted until his death
• The separation agreement was unenforceable for lack of Philippine judicial approval
• Luna’s second marriage to Soledad was void ab initio as bigamous
• Luna’s 25/100 share in the condominium and the law books were acquired during his subsisting marriage to Eugenia and belonged to the conjugal partnership of that marriage, hence to its heirs

Issues

  1. Whether the separation-and-property-settlement agreement, approved incidentally by a Dominican court, dissolved the conjugal partnership under Philippine law
  2. Whether a foreign divorce decree between Filipino spouses is recognized in the Philippines
  3. Whether Luna’s marriage to Soledad was void for bigamy and, if so, how the property acquired during that union is characterized
  4. Whether Soledad proved her actual contribution to the acquisition of the condominium interest and law books to establish co-ownership

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that:

  1. Philippine law

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.